LORENZO MA. D.G. AGUILAR, G.R. No. 172062
Petitioner,
Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Callejo,
Sr.,
Chico-Nazario, and
Nachura, JJ.
BURGER
MACHINE HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, OSCAR E.
RODRIGUEZ and MELCHOR V. Promulgated:
DE JESUS, JR.,
Respondents.
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
This resolves respondents’ (1) motion
for reconsideration of the Court’s October 30, 2006 Decision, praying that the
dismissal of petitioner be declared legal, or in the alternative, that
petitioner be awarded separation pay instead of reinstatement; and (2) motion
for clarification on the computation of backwages in relation to the propriety
of his payroll reinstatement instead of actual reinstatement pending appeal
from the Labor Arbiter’s decision.
Anent
the issue of illegal dismissal, respondents merely reiterate the thrust of
their Comment and after giving our ponencia a second look, we find no
sufficient basis to reconsider our findings that petitioner was illegally
dismissed.
As
regards the award of reinstatement, the Court finds that it would be best to
award separation pay instead of reinstatement, in view of the strained
relations between petitioner and respondents.
In fact, while petitioner prayed for reinstatement, he also admitted
that there is a “strained relationship now prevailing between [him and
respondents.]”[1] Under the doctrine of strained relations, the payment of separation pay has been
considered an acceptable alternative to reinstatement when the latter option is
no longer desirable or viable.[2]
In
view of the illegal dismissal of petitioner, he is entitled to separation pay
in lieu of reinstatement for the reason above stated, computed from the date of
petitioner’s employment until finality of our decision;[3]
and backwages to be computed from the date he was constructively dismissed, i.e., July 17, 2002, up to the finality
of this decision, less the amounts paid in accordance with his payroll
reinstatement. While the discretion to
choose the mode of reinstatement lies with the employer, the exercise thereof
by respondents in the instant case was, as correctly held by the Labor Arbiter,[4] a mockery of the true import of actual
reinstatement,[5] considering that
petitioner was reinstated as a Reserved Franchise Manager[6]
and was made to perform demeaning jobs.[7] This finding of fact by the Labor Arbiter as
affirmed by the National Labor Relations Commission is entitled to great weight
and respect and is therefore adopted by this Court. Moreover, payroll reinstatement is proper in
this case because the physical presence of petitioner in the office might have
worsened the already strained relations between him and respondents,
particularly, his immediate superior respondent De Jesus, to whom he will
directly report every day, as a Manager Reserve.
WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is PARTIALLY
GRANTED. The May 27, 2003 Decision
of the Labor Arbiter finding that petitioner was constructively dismissed, is REINSTATED
with the following MODIFICATIONS: (a) Respondents Caesar B. Rodriguez and Fe Esperanza B. Rodriguez are absolved of
personal liability; (b) the award of 14th month pay is deleted; (c) the awards of moral
and exemplary damages are reduced to P50,000.00 each; and (d) the award of
reinstatement is deleted, and in lieu thereof, petitioner should be paid
separation pay.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I
attest that the conclusions in the above resolution were reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Resolution were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, p. 45.
[2] Coca-Cola
Bottlers Phils., Inc. v. Daniel, G.R. No. 156893,
[3] Rasonable v. National Labor Relations Commission, 324 Phil. 191, 201 (1996).
[4] Rollo, p. 448.
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 413.
[7]